Oregon State Police: M114 is “very complex” and “on hold”, sample application

[Cavedweller]

the latest OFF alert says its required to be public.

Whiplash – Oregon Firearms Federation

www.oregonfirearms.org

I see that in the OFF alert, but unlike some folks here I have read the measure several times and it does not say that. So, if you would like to quote the actual section, subsection, and paragraph of the measure that states that it is required, I will apologize profusely.

4 copies floating around in State govt employee hands and you think that list wont make it public?

See my comment in post 10 above.

"The OSP could not say if all of the personal information required by the measure would be be public. (The measure requires it.)"

Please see my comment above.

 

[tkdguy]

All the gun dealers/ffls should be supporting OFF and others. We have carried the water on this campaign and the dealers should chip in their fair share and support OFF and others.

 

[Danall]

Ok they've launched the permit app, but before you can apply ya need the super duper training. It is obvious that they have released nothing on what is considered certified training to meet the requirements. Yes i know of the OSSA training but until i know a training plan/course has been approved by the Gods at OSP i ain't bitin. IF that training has been given the blessing of OSP for meeting requirements of 114 someone please let me know. And then there still is the "lock and load" portion.

 

[Cavedweller]

Does anybody on this board or voters that opposed 114 trust the intentions of the 114 proponents or those that advocate it's forward movement and administration?

I certainly don't.

The State does not have to maintain records as an online searchable database.

The measure does not state "on line." It says "electronic." As on a computer.

 

[Koda]

I see that in the OFF alert, but unlike some folks here I have read the measure several times and it does not say that. So, if you would like to quote the actual section, subsection, and paragraph of the measure that states that it is required

same here, Ive been looking and cant find it either where it explicitly states its required to be public.
The closest I find is it requires an annualy published report allowing great leeway to include personal information.




also just below that (Section 5a) it requires the database to be electronically searchable.

Now all that said, Oregon has a history of Democrats trying to make the CHL database public info. I cannot find in 114 where it prohibits the new purchase permit database to be made public.


source:

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf

 

[PiratePast40]

I noticed that the form only requests a three year residence history. I don't see the point if that's all the farther they want to investigate.

 

[Danall]

IS OSP trying to pull another fast one...or am i off base here.
OK the following is from OR114

(3)(a) Within 30 days of receiving an application for a permit under this section, if the permit agent has verified the applicant's identity and determined that the applicant has met each of the qualifications described in paragraph (1)(b) of this section, the permit agent shall issue the permit-to-purchase.

I read that as within 30 days of receiving the application they have 30 days ("shall") issue the permit.
the OSP web site with the application states

The Permit Agent makes the final decision to issue a Permit to Purchase or deny the applicant which must be completed within 30 days of the response from the Oregon State Police's background check.

They have reinterpreted the legislation to say it's 30 days AFTER the response from the background check....not after you initiated the process with the application. They are giving themselves a bunch more time contrary to the language of 114. Am i wrong here?

And the part about the "permit agent" making the final decision bothers me...you could pass the background check and the agent could choose to deny you the permit based on this wording. The agent has "final decision". IF the local yokel doesn't take a shine to you, ya might be screwed. A local agent could choose to deny all purchase permits. according the the OSP site. This is giving much more power to the local agent than what i read in the 114 language.

 

[ocarolan]

That kind of defeats the whole purpose of the thing. The idea is supposed to be to prevent wackos from getting guns, not to be able to add more charges because an offender lied on a form.

Ditto, yep why would J. psycho care about perjuring himself, when he intends to die anyway? It doesn't really fulfill M114 but guessing no state agency wants to touch the tar baby. So OSP is left holding the bag with this bizarre form…

Reading this, M114 really screws the State. They take on huge liability now in any shooting death, eg, "Look jury, J. Thug punched someone in school back in 1982 but Oregon sold him a gun!"

Let the $3 million state payouts to gangstas murdered by "faulty background checks" begin…

 

[Soli]

I see that in the OFF alert, but unlike some folks here I have read the measure several times and it does not say that. So, if you would like to quote the actual section, subsection, and paragraph of the measure that states that it is required, I will apologize profusely.

Been around and around about this: it doesn't have to say it. By statute all collected information is accessable via public records law unless it is exempted. So the silence on that does, in fact, say it is public.

In 114 there are sections of the existing statute that are retained (6 & 7) where the opposite is the case. The fact that the same exemption was not put in the new section 4 says that yes, it is public, and yes the drafters want it that way.

Section 4 (5)(a) The permit agent shall report the issuance of a permit under this section to the department, and shall provide to the department a copy of the permit and any information necessary for the department to maintain an electronic searchable database of all permits issued under this section. A permit agent revoking a permit shall report the revocation to the department at the time that notice of the revocation has been sent to the permit holder.
(b) The department shall maintain the electronic database described in paragraph (a) of this subsection by ensuring that new permits are added to the database, renewed permits are assigned a new expiration date, and expired or revoked permits are marked expired or revoked but retained in the database.

Section 6 (7)(b) The record of the information obtained during a request for a criminal history record check by a gun dealer is exempt from disclosure under public records law.

Section 8 (5)(b) The record of the information obtained during a request for a criminal background check under this section is exempt from disclosure under public records law.

I don't think I've overlooked anything in 114, if so want to see it.

Just trying to put to bed the idea that the info will be in a searchable database whose info will be available to the public (ie, you, me, the media, schools, businesses, someone you're applying for a job with, on and on), is somehow in doubt or "fake news". It's not.

 

[eldbillbo]

Time for a revote.

 

[Texanna]

My concern is a anti gun person looks you up ,what you own and then makes a claim you pulled a gun on them and give a full description of said gun because of that database. But not even a democrat would sink that low right?

A vindictive ex-whatever, or a neighbor who disapproves of your leaf blower, your dog, your bumper sticker, etc. They've handed these "get the last word" champs an arsenal, with the State as their muscle. Or how about dropping a 15-round mag that fits your listed tool thru your cracked vehicle window?

 

[156256Hunter]

I certainly don't.

The measure does not state "on line." It says "electronic." As on a computer.

True, but likely on a server, accessible from many computers/employees/permit agents searching for a permit.

 

[Enki_Tactical]

Form 4473 to permit aplication: sure you can copy my homework just switch it a little so it doesnt look like you cheated....
Oh and dont forget more money to the state.....

 

[Robert Hood]

Shoot! Half my neighbors light off 6" mortar fireworks all year. My little leaf blower wont even bother their hangover!!

 

[Cavedweller]

it doesn't have to say it. By statute all collected information is accessable via public records law unless it is exempted. So the silence on that does, in fact, say it is public.

I did not know that.

In 114 there are sections of the existing statute that are retained (6 & 7) where the opposite is the case. The fact that the same exemption was not put in the new section 4 says that yes, it is public, and yes the drafters want it that way.

If what you say is true, then I apologize profusely.

Just trying to put to bed the idea that the info will be in a searchable database whose info will be available to the public (ie, you, me, the media, schools, businesses, someone you're applying for a job with, on and on), is somehow in doubt or "fake news". It's not.

Consider it put to bed as far as I am concerned.

 

[156256Hunter]

Perhaps eventually the new Skynet database of permits will have, for each permit holder, links to their social media pages, just to make sure the agent can look to confirm the holder isn't hasn't recently said anything "out of character". Not that an agent would or could take the time to do that, but you never know

 

[156256Hunter]

Oregon DOJ list/links of information exempt from public records disclosure:

https://justice.oregon.gov/PublicRecordsExemptions/

And link to their Public Records Manual (2019 version):

Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual 2019 - Oregon Department of Justice

HTML Quick Links Introduction | Search Table of Contents I. Public Records A. Who Has The Right To Inspect Public Records? B. Who Is Subject To The Public Records Law? C. What Records Are Covered By The Law? D. How Can A Person Inspect Or Obtain Public Records? E. How Does A Public Body...

www.doj.state.or.us

 

[CorvallisOr]

"you could pass the background check and the agent could choose to deny you the permit based on this wording. The agent has "final decision". IF the local yokel doesn't take a shine to you, ya might be screwed."

Yeah. That's my understanding - and part of the court complaints.

 

[Robert Hood]

Seems like this is the NEW New York.

 

[156256Hunter]

Yeah. That's my understanding - and part of the court complaints.

Ironically, it could be that certain categories of people

Seems like this is the NEW New York.

I'd like to do my best Snake Plissken impression and get out of here